I am switching my ducks off of an organic grower feed that is produced by the local feed store. Although I really like it, and the ducks love it, I can no longer justify the cost. They're 7-8 months old, and if it was more affordable, I would like to continue feeding it because they seem to do well on this higher protein (20%), higher fat (5.5%) ration.
So, to help me decide what to switch over to, I've been comparing other feeds. Mazuri Waterfowl Maintenance feed was part of my comparison; I'm left wondering how it can be so much more expensive than other non-organic and organic feeds?
I'm no expert, that's for sure. But it seems that nutritionally the main differences are the vitamin and supplement contents (e.g. it has higher Vit A and Vit E than other feeds, and has fish meal and brewer's yeast). And it contains "ash" which I'm not sure what that is, but the other feeds in my comparison don't have "ash." Do these factors justify the difference in cost?
Amazingly, it costs more per pound than the local organic chick grower I've been feeding, the stuff that I can't afford anymore... and Mazuri Waterfowl Maintenance isn't even organic. Am I missing something here? Possibly the cost is in the research and development that Mazuri does... or maybe they're just able to charge higher prices because they don't have much to compete with as far as waterfowl-specific feeds go. Here's a screen capture of the little analysis I did.
P.S. The vitamin contents for Mazuri shouldn't be percentages in my spreadsheet, that's my typo.
So, to help me decide what to switch over to, I've been comparing other feeds. Mazuri Waterfowl Maintenance feed was part of my comparison; I'm left wondering how it can be so much more expensive than other non-organic and organic feeds?
I'm no expert, that's for sure. But it seems that nutritionally the main differences are the vitamin and supplement contents (e.g. it has higher Vit A and Vit E than other feeds, and has fish meal and brewer's yeast). And it contains "ash" which I'm not sure what that is, but the other feeds in my comparison don't have "ash." Do these factors justify the difference in cost?
Amazingly, it costs more per pound than the local organic chick grower I've been feeding, the stuff that I can't afford anymore... and Mazuri Waterfowl Maintenance isn't even organic. Am I missing something here? Possibly the cost is in the research and development that Mazuri does... or maybe they're just able to charge higher prices because they don't have much to compete with as far as waterfowl-specific feeds go. Here's a screen capture of the little analysis I did.
P.S. The vitamin contents for Mazuri shouldn't be percentages in my spreadsheet, that's my typo.
Last edited:
